Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples

Is this a joke?

Does the theory that the Etruscan or the Rhaetic is Semitic seem more serious to you instead?

The Slovenian theory is a joke just like many other theories about Etruscans.
 
Does the theory that the Etruscan or the Rhaetic is Semitic seem more serious to you instead?

The Slovenian theory is a joke just like many other theories about Etruscans.

I think you've misread something.
 
I associate Semitic with the expansion of bronze from Anatolia/Mesopotamia. Which IMO would be the first candidate if Etruscan wasn't native to Italy.
But my guess is, Etruscan was an old neolithic/chalcolithis local laguage, which was adopted by some incoming IE people, which as you suggested may also have happened in Basque.

So, you're proposing that the Anatolians, or the Aegean peoples, spoke Semitic?

The genetic signal into Italy is additional "Caucasus". The cultural signal is Greek or Anatolian. The Semites have nothing to do with it. Etruscan, certainly, has nothing to do with Semitic.

All discussions about the Etruscans go round and round because we have no genetic data. When we get it we'll be able to discuss them more intelligently.

Perhaps it's best if we get back to what is in this actual paper.
 
Interesting...Beaker Sicily cluster with Sardinians (page 43), this is in line with archaeology...Beaker arrived in Sicily from there

Utilizzando Tapatalk
 
How are they invisible? Etruscans are clearly a Bell Beaker derived R1b people who adapted to local languages like Vasconics and Iberians.


1ZvLB70.jpg



Should be easy enough to confirm when the Etruscan samples all turn out R1b.

And it's been confirmed by leaks of the upcoming ancient Italy paper:
UhpcwYM.png


Etruscans were R1b and Bell Beaker derived, Romans were like ancient Greeks and the other Balkan IEs.
 
Now this is one study I'm looking forward to! The more samples from Greece and Rome the better! I see most of the Roman samples clustering with South Italians, islanders and Mycenaeans

Oh and I see some mainland Greeks in that cluster as well, hard to see at first though. When is this paper coming out?
 
So it's exactly what one would expect considering the archaeological evidence. The position of the Romans relative to the Mycenaeans is interesting, as it indicates that the Proto-Italics either had higher Anatolian ancestry than the Proto-Greeks, or that they absorbed fewer natives than did the Greeks. I'm guessing it's #2.
 
And it's been confirmed by leaks of the upcoming ancient Italy paper:
UhpcwYM.png


Etruscans were R1b and Bell Beaker derived, Romans were like ancient Greeks and the other Balkan IEs.

Wow, this is incredible! I overlap with them. I would love to see these samples in an ancient calculator.
 
Interesting, I would be between those two. Mytrueancestry got it right with Hellenic Roman + Roman

I think the guy just made that up. It would imply that the Roman majority was of Greek origin, which is completely untenable of course. Not to mention that the Romans have more Anatolian ancestry than the Myceneaens.

It's much more likely that those Romans who plotted between the Etruscans and the main Roman cluster had Etruscan ancestry.
 
I think the guy just made that up. It would mean that the Roman majority was of Greek origin, which is completely untenable of course.

I agree, I think that could be the case.

At any rate, I'm really looking forward to seeing the source of the PCA when it comes out.
 
And like always, there will be people in other forums/blogs who will complain and say "this pca is wrong"
 
according to the other leak Latium was still EEF in 1700 bc so the Latins arrived in the MBA or more likely in the LBA

Remedello 3 (2000 bc circa) was still EEF too so the indoeuropeans came in italy likely in the MBA (from Hungary?), i dont think that Parma Bell Beaker had a great impact genetically because the Po Plain was completely repopulated in the early MBA by Poladans and people from Danubian plain

Utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Are the IA Romans genuine proto-Romans? I doubt it. Rather a mix with Greeks.
And Villanovia was not the culture of an unique ethny speaking an unique language; things deserves refinings I think. I wonder if some of the first Villanovians were not Umbrian-like tribes; that said, concerning Y-haplo's, the Toscans of today have I think an heavy (ancient) Ligurians input. Only speculations, of course, but a bunch of anDNA of IA is not sufficient to make my mind.
 

This thread has been viewed 327364 times.

Back
Top